Re: [sasl] New Work Items - Kitten Recharter

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

Eliot Lear wrote:

>> We are looking for consensus on whether the Kitten WG should adopt 
>> the following drafts as work items:
>>
>>     draft-cantor-ietf-sasl-saml-ec
>>     draft-mills-kitten-sasl-oauth
>>
>> You can respond to lists (kitten or SASL), but please indicate your 
>> decision regardless if you are for or against the proposal.
>
> I support the inclusion of both drafts in our milestones.  To answer 
> Alexey's reaonable question, draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml attempts to 
> rely on existing infrastructure as much as possible, both on the 
> client and on the IdP, while requiring some substantial changes to the 
> RP.   draft-cantor-ietf-sasl-saml-ec requires more substantial changes 
> to the client, but keeps SAML within the application protocol.  The 
> implication of the design choices relate more to how actual 
> authentication gets performed between the SASL client and the IdP. 
>  Existing IdPs make use of HTTP/HTML and unstructured exchanges for 
> that authentication.
>
> In Scott's draft, that occurs in step (4).  This requires the client 
> to have substantially more capabilities than it might have today with 
> either a fully functional web browser either built into the 
> application or tied to the application via some form of IPC with 
> sufficient semantic abilities to discern when to move through step 4 
> to step 5, but at the same time, provides for an overall simpler 
> protocol flow than the document that Klaas and I have put forth.

Yes, I've seen this argument on the mailing list. Two documents suggest 
reasonable solutions for the assumption made. However I am not yet fully 
convinced that the assumption is something important enough to warrant 
having 2 documents.

> Discovery is also handled in Scott's draft.  That is something that we 
> should consider incorporating into the other.

Right.